Newcomer v. Mountain

United States District Court, Central District of Illinois · March 3, 2025 · No. 3:24-cv-03286

Summary

This Merit Review Order from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois screens a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 complaint alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and due process violations following a May 2024 incident at a correctional facility. After applying the legal standards for frivolous claims and failure to state a claim, the court dismisses all named defendants without prejudice except for one correctional officer. The plaintiff is permitted to proceed solely on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Brant Mountain, while the court provides standard procedural directives regarding service, discovery, and medical records.

Court
United States District Court, Central District of Illinois
Writing for the Court
James E. Shadid
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Central District of Illinois
Decision date
March 3, 2025
Docket number
3:24-cv-03286
Procedural posture
Merit review of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A; court screened claims and dismissed those insufficient.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

section 1983prisoners rightscivil rightscruel and unusual punishmentdue processprocedural due processcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil rightsprisoner rightscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff’s allegations state a plausible Eighth Amendment excessive‑force claim against Defendant Brant Mountain.
  2. Whether Plaintiff’s allegations against the remaining defendants are sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Holdings

  1. The court permits Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive‑force claim against Defendant Brant Mountain.
  2. Defendants Garbett, Knight, Gasko, Goins, Holzer, Erude, Little, Greene, Dickson, and Arnes are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and §1915A.

Key quotations

While a plaintiff need not demonstrate a significant injury to state a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment, ‘a claim ordinarily cannot be predicated on a de minimis use of physical force.’
The Court must balance the amount of the force used against the need for the force.

Factual background

While incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center, Plaintiff alleges that on May 29, 2024 Defendant Correctional Officer Garbett refused him ice, called Defendant Brant Mountain for assistance, and Mountain restrained Plaintiff, threw him to the ground, and knelt on his head and neck. Subsequent officers allegedly assaulted Plaintiff, and he later sought medical care for injuries to his thumb and back.

Procedural history

Plaintiff Bostyn Newcomer filed a pro se §1983 complaint alleging excessive force and other constitutional violations. The district court conducted a merit review, allowed the excessive‑force claim against Defendant Brant Mountain, and dismissed all other defendants for failure to state a claim.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from United States District Court Central District Of Illinois